Sign In

March 2013 Archives

I just have to say that this book, Networked, by Rainie and Barry Wellman is the best book we have read so far. It keeps me interested with all of the stories and good examples. It also is not so much based on the technical aspect of the internet and technology, but more in how it plays a role in our lives. This to me makes the book a lot easier to understand.
In Chapter 10, it states, "Information itself has become networked and more densely packed, making peoples experiences with it more immerse and participatory." (256) I believe this to be a very true statement. Information is all over the place, it is a part of networks on the internet as well as networks of people. A lot of information isn't simply sitting in one place waiting to get looked up; it is connected to many other pieces of information that is related to it. So when you do a search for one thing online, you may get information about something related to it, because it is a part of a network of information. As for the person's experience, you really do have to immerse yourself into a network in order to really benefit from it and obtain the wanted information from it.
In chapter 10, I also enjoyed the example of Linda Evans. It talked about how her creating networks and finding people who had things in common with her like her divorce and working through it. It showed that anyone no matter what circumstances can become a truly networked individual. In this chapter it also discussed how a survey done by an internet company showed that many people had done something for a complete stranger online to help them out. I thought this was really interesting, by being a networked individual, people can not only help to control their own lives but also reach out and help others in need. Overall I really liked this book and enjoyed reading it.

Rainee and Wellman have a great propensity toward providing frequent examples and illustrations to make a point. Chapters 7 and 8 illustrate very clearly what new things the Internet has allowed us to do.
Chapter 7's example is that of the Boeing 777 and 787's design. Instead of using a consolidated in-house approach to designing these planes, Boeing decided to go with a distributed inter-organizational approach. This meant that people from places as far apart as the Us, UK and Japan were all working together, albeit sometimes on separate parts. Even the mock-ups were completely virtual, coming from "over 220 computer terminals"(192) instead of physical tests. One of the key tools of this process was the ability for each team to see in real-time the changes other teams were making. It has been estimated that this process was 30 to 40 percent faster than paper-based designs. This stunning statistic illustrates quite clearly how beneficial the internet can be when integrated into the design process.
Chapter 8,in part, examines Wikipedia and similar sites of networked creation. Rainee and Wellmann discuss how this networked style of content creation is a powerful process in both speed and quality of production. In particular i liked how they talked about how "professional elite managers no longer hold a monopoly on content creation"(204) because the internet has created a place for networked individuals to collaborate on content. This chapter is also the source of one of my favorite infographics in a long time. Figure 8.1 on 202 shows the links between articles and editors for the 2011 Japanese disasters. It shows how a huge majority of editors worked only on one article in particular, and very few worked on all. This figure shows very well how a large number of small contributions can create an extremely valuable source of information.
Overall, these chapters show how the internet has become an integral part of new resources and production strategies.While many of the effects of the internet can be disputed and questioned, these are fairly concrete examples of what the internet has contributed to knowledge distribution and content production.

The data on the distribution of internet users by age and the time shares of the top 10 internet hotspots that Rainie and Wellman chose in chapter 5 of Networked caught the majority of my attention from this week's readings and class discussions. While Desmond and I were discussing chapter 5, more specifically figure 5.3 on p. 139, during class we both noted how each of us has multiple accounts on social networking sites with varying ages. Our discussion made me wonder if this was in any way accounted for in the Pew survey. Table 5.2 on p. 141 caught my interest because of a pattern I saw in the four subcategories that showed a positive change. Social networks, online games, videos/movies, and search seem to me the categories that we have seen embrace the hallmark of web 2.0, user input.

"Critics used to worry that the internet would be an inadequate replacement for human contact because hugging a computer screen is less satisfying than hugging a friend" and "in fact, the evidence shows that ICTs supplement rather than replace human contact." Rainie and Wellman have it right by describing ICTs as a supplement. A recent post on Facebook by my half sister exemplifies this. She recently discovered that my 10 year-old nephew created a Facebook account without her knowing and proceeded to deactivate it. Afterword she turned to her network on Facebook and asked what they would have done and how the handle Facebook with their children. The information that my sister gained from the 35 comments on her post acts as a supplement because she has already decided on the parental action of her choice and took to Facebook for additional sources on the topic. I don't think it would be too much to assume that my half sister had the ability to talk to 35 different people about this incident. This situation is telling of the amount of information, even if it is supplemental, that can be conveyed over ICTs as opposed to strictly during human contact.

The topics Rainie and Wellman covered in chapter 5 all seemed very subjective too me. They tried too disprove all claims that ICT's have caused any issues with an individuals socialization and in fact want desperately to prove just the opposite. I don't know if they were very successful in doing that for me. I can see may instances in my own life where ICT 's have helped me but also hindered me. I am a much more face to face type of person I want to see someones facial expression and tone of voice in order to fully understand what the context and meaning is behind their dialog. Because of this I tend to refrain from important discussions until they can happen face to face and because of how networked we have all become this is getting harder and harder to accomplish with other people. Even my boss texts me instead of calling or coming to speak to me personally. But there are instances where ICT's have improved and enhanced my network. There are people that I communicate with now because of them that I wouldn't have in the past. I am able to easily text someone are short message that under normal circumstances I wouldn't bother to call or send an e-mal about. This allows me to remain in contact with people that are still important to me that I don't come into contact with on a regular basis. And so I think there are positives and negatives to ICT's and it would have been nice for Rainie and Wellman to consider both rather then try to brush aside any of the negatives and completly disragard them.

Chapter 6 I felt was really just a retelling of what we are all living right now. There really wasn't anything there that I felt was new information to me. We are all busy and the type of lifestyles we live now and the ease of ICT's have bred "Networked Families". As long as there is still human interaction on a daily basis within these networked families I feel that ICT's have improved my life and made it easier to keep to my families busy schedules and help us stay connected. And so I didn't really find anything wrong with chapter 6 except that it would have been nice to have them tie that information into something that I could have learned from or felt that a had gotten something out of it. However, this is probably just my reaction. If one had adverse feeling about letting their family become networked the information Rainie and Wellman gave maybe would help alleve their fears.

Rainie and Wellman begin chapter five discussing the many concerns about networked relationships and how the internet is creating isolation among Americans. On page 117, Douglas Cornish questioned, "Will this glow [from the internet] produce a closed generation of socially challenged individuals, humans who are more comfortable with machines than anything else?" I agree with the authors of this book when they argue that the anxieties about the diminishing of relationships because of the widespread use of the internet and development of advanced technologies is not a new trepidation, but has been around for centuries. I liked how they explained how this apprehension is a recurring process that transpires each and every time a new development is produced. The internet has now become the "scapegoat" and something to hold responsible for the social change that has manifested in American society. I believe that the internet has allowed individuals to connect on a whole other level; creating or maintaining relationships with many different individuals, which was not possible before.
One statement on page 119 by Sherry Turkle mentions that individuals are "more preoccupied with the connections they make through mobile phones than with the real people who are standing mere inches away." Immediately I thought of my everyday life around campus and how it is true that people are so connected to their mobile phones that meeting and creating new relationships with unfamiliar individuals is extremely rare. I'm not sure if things were different years ago, but when I enter a classroom on the first day of class, often times the students are sitting silently at their desks, looking at their phones text messaging, looking something up, visiting a social networking site, etc. It is rare to see people conversing or creating new relationships. Whether this is due to students being preoccupied on their mobile phones or not, I still thought it was an interesting comment.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that the internet has limited our society's ability to relate with one another. Instead, I feel it has enhanced it. On page 128 the authors explain how the use of the internet has increased the amount of friends an individual has over time. The innovation of various ICTs has enabled "people [to] have more freedom [and] to tailor their interactions. They have increased opportunities about where- and with whom- to connect" (125).

A side note! In chapter 6, on page 148, a single mom explains how her and her son communicate via ICTs. When reading that the mom sent her son an IM through skype to get a hold of him when he was upstairs, I couldn't believe it! How lazy has our society become? When two people are in the same house, I feel that we should be able to relate face to face and not rely on communicating through ICTs.

Rainie and Wellman argue that our new social technologies do not inhibit our communication skills, but instead enhance and supplement them. I fully agree, but not everyone else does. The book touches this point in multiple places such as:

p. 6 "... we wonder about the folks who keep moaning that the internet is killing society. They sound just like those who worried generations ago that TV or automobiles would kill sociability..."

p. 8 "However, some analysts fear that people's lesser involvement in local community organizations... means that we live in a socially diminished world where trust is lower, societal cohesion is reduced, loneliness is widespread, and people's collective capacity to help one another is at risk."

p. 13 "...social networks are large and diversified.... To some critics, this seems to be a problem. They express concern that technology creates social isolation, as people rely on tech-based communication rather than richer face-to-face encounters."

It seems as though the topic of whether or not social media is hurting our interpersonal skills gets sensationalized in the news. In fact, a searching for "social media killing social skills" on Google returns about 56,700,000 results. But worries about information overload, skill deadening, and the death of face-to-face communication are nothing new.

Socrates warned against writing in his dialog Phaedrus because it would "create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories." When newspapers became common around the 18th century the same concern arose again.

The Frenchman Guillaume-Chrétien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes (yes that is his actual name) was completely against getting news from a printed page. He argued that it "socially isolated readers and detracted from the spiritually uplifting group practice of getting news from the pulpit".

The same kind of responses can be found for every new media/communication technology; radio, TV, cell phones, and the Internet. With how many reports that come out about our future generation's social skills dying you would think we would all have reverted back to caveman-esque social skills or at least live in complete isolation from each other. We all know this isn't true. I would argue that if you take away online communication those of us are introverts would communicate less. It actually gives a voice to those who find it hard to talk face-to-face. Wasn't it just in our last book Weaving the Web that Berners-Lee met someone in person who was very vocal online only to be surprised by how withdrawn he was in real life?

People who want to meet friends in person still do, and those who want to chat online can do so at their leisure, hopefully all in moderation. Social media hasn't ruined friends getting together as nothing can replace the fun of going out to eat or seeing a movie with friends. I found this quote online that captures my point, "I don't think it has affected our generation," says Creighton freshman Brittany Gilbert. "They believe social media only enhances their important connections. We still have friends we hang out with," says Brittany.

p.s. The title of my blog comes from a 2005 British study that was reported by CNN.com about how harmful email and texting is.

The Peter and Trudy story in Chapter 1 of Networked by Rainee and Wellman proves that a significant shift has happened. On page 8, theres a powerful quote, "In generations past, people usually had small, tight social networks- in rural areas or urban villages- where a few important family members, close friends, neighbors, leaders and community groups (churches and the like)constituted the safety net and support system for individuals." One page later, Rainee and Wellman point out that, "Except in emergencies, they can no longer passively let the village take care of them and control them. They must actively network. They need to expend effort and sometimes money to maintain their ties near and far..."

This difference is important. Research demonstrates that happiness is derived from relationships, and these relationships make up our social networks. The fact that your network directly effects YOU makes understanding our networks relevant to all. On page 42: "...people are about 15 percent more likely to be happy if they have close ties with happy people." And more grave: "...if a person is depressed ,then their friends are liklier to be depressed." Research supports that you become like those in your social network. It's powerful in many ways.

The beginning of Chapter 2 argues, "everyone is embedded in structures of relationships that provide opportunities, constraints, coalitions, and work-arounds." In the context of examples in the text, this is true. Peter and Trudy had the opportunity to share an image of Trudy in the hospital- head bandaged, brain injured- with friends as an update. Their situation and challenge was shared and spread. Others in different branches of their network formed coalitions to assist and support them throughout her recovery. This allowed them to work-around some financial barriers. It also provided contact with happy people helping out, which undoubtably enabled the couple to stay positive more easily.

But the most important connection to make here is the constraints factor the authors mentioned. If Peter did not cease the opportunity and make the effort to send that image of Trudy in her injured state, would their story have reached their network or reached the part of their network that could truly help? The fact that technological skill like use of devices, significant effort, and an understanding of how to reach certain audiences within your social network (since the Internet is ubiquitous now and even perpetrated the "Laggards" category of the Innovation Curve (pg. 47)) is absolutely necessary and required is a problem for society. Mostly because there are a sad minority of individuals out there that would be very supported and would enjoy close, strong relationships in the previous non-digital generation, but lack the skills and understanding to navigate and leverage their social network now that the network has migrated online. They miss out on the close relationships, and therefore happiness, that they deserve. Machine is depleting man in these rare cases.

Pg 1: "She slammed her head on a rock and was knocked unconscious." This start of the book grabbed my attention right away. What happened? Will she be ok? Does she need to go to the hospital? All these were things that went through my mind when reading this. It was uncomfortable. However you know that she will be ok and you know that from what Peter tells you. He takes some pictures with his phone and emails this to his friends and family. His friends then forwarded this to another handful of people and within 36 hours, almost 150 people knew about his wife's accident. This is the authors' way of first explaining networks. I like how they grab your attention and then show the aftermath of it. If it wasn't for Peter taking a picture with his phone and send it to multiple people at the same time. It's fascinating how technology can help get the message out there and get people involved when you really think about it.

The book then goes on and on about different statistics on how people are dropping from groups and how technology and networking is becoming more important.

Pg. 38: "We may think we are free agents, but there are others whose presence in our networks and broader environments shapes the decision we make". I liked this particular quote because it made me think about it. I would agree and disagree with this statement. I would say the people around me shape my decisions for sure. I ask my friends about their opinion all the time and if I didn't I would consider myself a free agent. However it is my choice to hang around these people. Does this not make me a free agent?

After what we discussed in class that you sacrifice something to be a part of a group and that a network has undefined borders. I am still a little confused. I believe I belong to many groups and also have different network of people that I would associate with. It is hard for me to see a clear line between the two, because some of the people that are in my personal network are also in my groups. I did like the fact that networks have undefined borders and that is what I am homing this book will elaborate more for me. So far chapter 2 is doing a good job trying.

So far Networked has been mainly about the many new ways people can connect with other people through various social network sites as well as the internet in general and the advantages as well as disadvantages of it all. On page 16, the authors point out how "home and work have become more intertwined" than ever before. I believe it was a great point to address because it is a big topic in which I think many people over look when it comes to the internet being tied into our daily lives.

Personally I've noticed over the years how much the internet and social networks have impacted my life through my dad's job. As a (self-employed) realtor, he didn't have usual structured 9-5 days like most parents have when their children are growing up which always made it tough for our family when it came to afterschool programs, dinners, and other basic things. As the years went on and he started becoming more involved with the internet for the use of his business and the help of smart phones, he's been more attached with his job than ever before. Yes, being connected can be a very positive thing because it could mean more business, but on the other hand it can take away from a person's daily life and does affect other people.

The authors also touched on this note again on page 31, but they have turned being connected into a positive thing, claiming that "work has become flexible in the developed world". There's pros and cons to everything and of course I'll admit it was nice when my dad was able to stop working from his real office and was allowed the flexibility to start working from home, as soon as smart phones were developed along with the other ways to connect through your job via Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and WiFi, but the connectedness took away some of the time my dad could potentially spend with me, and instead used for his job.

With the increasing technology, people are tying in all sorts of their lives which at one point were all separate. Granted, as things have progressed over the years, there's always has been and will be worry about how the "new thing" will hurt or take away from what was; Example- Texting reducing face to face contact with friends. For some, the blurring of lines over the pieces of a person's life may be for the best, but for some, the overlapping of work into a person's personal life doesn't affect only them, but other people as well, which is something many people overlook.

Chapter 5 talked a lot about the essence of intertextuality and gave us definitions of what one had thought it was. I toot the liberty to look it up to see what specifically it was and what Wikipedia had said was that "Intertextuality was the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts." Seemed pretty simple to me, so why was a whole chapter about it? While reading I saw that Intertextuality isn't just about "texts." Kristeva states "any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is an absorption and transformation of [other] texts" (pg. 79). I love how she had said "mosaic of quotations" because I have never really thought of "mosaic" without the use of art involved, but it makes perfect since. A text really is just something that is created out of pre-writings like questions, notes, and multiple ideas you have strung in your head to find the perfect mosaic masterpiece.

I think Intertextuality has more to do with how the audience experience certain texts. Certain language has the power to not only exceed individual control but also determine subjectivity and with this power it can significantly emphasize the uniqueness of both texts and authors that really get the audience to be more attentive to what they are being taught.

Chapter 5 talked a lot about the essence of intertextuality and gave us definitions of what one had thought it was. I toot the liberty to look it up to see what specifically it was and what Wikipedia had said was that "Intertextuality was the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts." Seemed pretty simple to me, so why was a whole chapter about it? While reading I saw that Intertextuality isn't just about "texts." Kristeva states "any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is an absorption and transformation of [other] texts" (pg. 79). I love how she had said "mosaic of quotations" because I have never really thought of "mosaic" without the use of art involved, but it makes perfect since. A text really is just something that is created out of pre-writings like questions, notes, and multiple ideas you have strung in your head to find the perfect mosaic masterpiece.

I think Intertextuality has more to do with how the audience experience certain texts. Certain language has the power to not only exceed individual control but also determine subjectivity and with this power it can significantly emphasize the uniqueness of both texts and authors that really get the audience to be more attentive to what they are being taught.

Warnick and Heinemen are discussing rhetorical analysis of intertextuality. They describe intertextuality "as a genre that is compromised of cultural matrix of the readers' experience and general knowledge of salient current events supporting the intertexual reference." This means that intertextuality is how authors and creators have involved their audiences in persuasion by referring to things the audiences may know at that time through their personal interests, knowledge, and what is current in their culture. They justify this through four different themes archetypal allegory, cross-referencing, parody, and satire. They had a great example of intertextuality when describing a cross-reference, or a reference to a specific film, novel, or other work. They cross-reference involved a 1984 Super Bowl Macintosh commercial that eluded to 1984 novel by George Orwell, IBM, and a few other late films. This advertisement is rhetorical because the advertisement's message has a persuasive aspect when the referred content is understood to those who are familiar with it. Warnick and Heinemen mention that readers have a sense of accomplishment when they understand or pick up on references. Rhetoric is seen at its best here, because when a reader connects with the creator's reference they feel a sense of superiority, and what better to persuade a reader than to make them feel powerful about their knowledge, even exclusive at times. What is interesting with this though is that Warnick and Heinemen describe intertextual content as not always black and white, with a clearly defined message to one audience. It can be interpreted in many ways, depending on how people connect with the information. Their example of JibJab's "Big Box Mart" about Walmart is a good illustration of this. It alerts readers to a social problem that some may already recognize and others may not, some really understanding the take-away message, and others just finding it entertaining. I think the authors did a great job to demonstrate the web as information from referenced information to create this rhetorical exchange of ideas.

So let me just say that I love the examples that are used in Warnick and Heinman's book, Rhetoric Online. In chapter 5 the book talks about an Obama video spoof and how it , "...serves as a masterful example of an adroit use of intertextuality as a genre because its viewers had to be thoroughly familiar with the political background and preceding chronology of political events in order to fully appreciate the videos content." (75) What the book goes on to talk about is how this example is intertextual, one reasoning is because it can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. People who have different political views or that didn't know where the background song was from could have varying opinions of what it meant. Some people thought it was pro Obama, while others thought it was meant to take a dig at him. I thought this was very interesting, depending on what people's background knowledge was, made them think different things. As quoted, "The content of this video therefore illustrate the ways in which intertextuality as a genre is comprised of the cultural matrix of the readers' experience and general knowledge of salient current events supporting the intertextual reference." (77) Without the prior knowledge of the political world, or the way in which the video was presented, many people probably would not have understood it. I completely agree with this statement, there are many things that prior knowledge is needed to truly understand them the way they are suppose to be understood.

Another example (page 82) this book gives is the Macintosh computer commercial and how it was based on a book 1984. Without knowing what the book was about, many readers truly did not understand the commercial. They may have thought it was an interesting commercial and it may have caught their eye, but without that prior knowledge it was harder to truly get the reference. This is another good example of intertextual content. I personally never have read the book so I probably wouldn't have understood the reference and thought it was just a silly commercial, again you need the prior understanding to grasp the message.

Overall, so far this book is interesting to me. It gives a lot of different examples that are current real life examples, many from the political world. It will be interesting to see how this book can relate to the next couple of books we read.

Warnick and Heineman discuss the possibility that Web reading is different than print text reading in chapter 5 of Rhetoric Online. Warnick and Heineman state, "Web reading, however, is discontinuous and fragmented; readers read rapidly and piece together what they read from various sources" (p. 77). I agree with this statement because I scan websites to find my information quickly. Once I find the information I am looking for, I skim the content till I find exactly what I want. If I cannot find exactly what I want I will follow the hypertext links on the site to find the information.

Warnick and Heineman explain that intertextuality is closely tied to the Web. They state, "Thus, intertextuality occurs when one text is in some way connected in a work to other texts in the social and textual matrix." Each webpage is connected to others and leads users to more information at the tip of their fingers. Warnick and Heineman argue, "...readers nevertheless play a strong role in taking in the texts they encounter..." (p. 86). This statement means that the audience and the medium are important factors for rhetoric on the web. The way the webpage or document looks and flows can make a difference in how a user is persuaded by the content. The authors explain the presentational, orientational, and organizational meanings (p. 86-87) for different functions of the readers' role online. All three are important for the user to understand the intertextual-based content.

Connecting different ideas, texts, or signs to the site create the intertextual-based content. This type of content provides to be a good strategy for rhetoric. Comparing Web-based discourse to print discourse shows that they are fairly similar. Both take ideas and information from other sources. The main difference is that Web-based discourse allows users to have faster access to the other ideas, sources, or other features (i.e. signs, menus, etc.). In my opinion, the Internet is better for rhetoric for a greater use of hypertextuality compared to print.

Wow, I must say , I've never really come across such a big DUH-moment in my life when it comes to rhetorical theory. I mean , basing one piece of rhetoric on another , drawing on its themes, implications, and its almost guaranteed exposure to make a point in another piece of rhetoric, that's always been something I've been aware of. But Warnick and Heineman really took the extra step here by analytically describing, terming it (or at least describing the people who termed it) . Frankly, I completely agree with them that innertexuality is everywhere, and it has been everywhere all the time. It gives literature , actually all of rhetoric in general, a sense of connection, and this connection is completely unrestricted. I mean, if someone could connect two things such as 1984 to IBM and Macintosh, then all bets are off.
And with the dawn of hypertext, this has only grown in importance and presence, if even possible for it to become any more present. I mean, i see it now, all the multi-million viewed youtube vidoes are almost guaranteed to be quoted , and everyone would understand the joke/quote. In fact, memes are a great example of that, in my opinion. iconic moments in movies are truly made legend through the constant reinvention of catchy one-liners, whats better , anyone can make a meme, and everyone will get it (if you do it right).
So basically, I really liked this chapter . It brought something very prevalent, yet subtle in rhetoric and throw it in my face. However, I do think that the two authors could have expanded on how innertextuality manifests here and now, especially since this book was republished in 2012.

Warnick and Heineman argued in Chapter Three of Rhetoric Online: "therefore, not only do interactivity and online discussions facilitate communication, they enhance the potential for developing a more informed and attentive electorate." (p. 61)

This is diametrically opposite of what Jürgen Habermas might argue about the value of online rhetoric. To Warnick and Heineman online interactivity promotes engagement and education among online users. Users discuss, they share and they produce. As Clay Shirky, an NYU new media professor, has argued, the former audience has become the producers. When people are given additional ways to communicate and interact with one another online, instead of simply consuming static information on a page, the supposition is that critical debate and ubiquitous information sharing will empower the electorate. The authors additionally site a staggering statistic: "in the 2008 election, 74% of Internet users went online to get involved in the political process." (p. 53)

That's impressive. But does that mean online interactivity, whether through social networks, comment streams, polls, donation drives, petitions, the point-and-click shareability of information or interactive blogging, is actually making people more informed and involved in our political processes?

I argue yes, though with some disclaimers.

Looking at the online protests over SOPA and PIPA a couple years back, it was easy to see how bills that in a previous era would have skirted by unnoticed were savaged by an digitally-powered angry electorate. Both corporations and lawmakers were punished in the PR arena by activists and everyday people alike. Then more recently, following the death of Aaron Swartz, the activist got some of what he fought for through a petition on Whitehouse.gov - one of those interactive online outlets Warnick and Heineman would seem to champion - resulting in the Obama Administration making all government-funded research papers freely available online.

Yet, interactivity has allowed a lot disinformation to spread online as well. Conspiracy theories were alive and well among Internet users following the tragic shootings in Aurora and Sandy Hook Elementary. A lot of ignorance gets shared across interactive networks as well, such as among the Tea Party Movement, which Warnick and Heineman also briefly discuss. (p. 34) There are numerous other examples of misinformation spread across the Internet as well. So while interactivity might "inform" the electorate more, it takes responsible Internet denizens to insure that information is truthful and accurate.